University  of  California  •  Berkeley 


A  pea  fwr  %  <5nUum 


,i   tu    thru; 


A  Plea  for  the  Golden  Rule 


By  Elbert  A.  Smith. 


A  review  of  certain  portions  of  the  book  entitled 

Mormonism,  the   Islam   of   America,  by 

Reverend  Bruce  Kinney. 


HERALD  PUBLISHING  HOUSE 
Reorganized  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day   Saints 

.       LAMONI,    IOWA 

1913. 


Preliminary   Questions 

Are  you  courageous  enough  to  hear  both  sides  of 
a  question  tJiat  the  Council  of  Women  for  Home  Mis- 
sions has  thought  worthy  of  study? 

Are  you  willing  to  concede  that  no  just  conclusions 
can  be  reached  until  both  sides  are  heard? 

Are  you  sufficiently  broad-minded  to  include  all 
people  in  the  scope  of  your  application  of  the  Golden 
Rule  of  our  Savior  and  Lord, — not  excepting  even 
Latter  Day  Saints? 

Are  you  willing  to  cast  aside  and  repudiate  the 
old  spirit  of  bigotry  that  led  the  Jews  to  condemn 
tfesus  unheard  on  the  ground  that  no  good  could  come 
out  of  despised  Nazareth? 

If  you  can  answer  these  questions  affirmatively,  we 
beg  of  you  to  read  the  following  pages.  If  you  can 
not  answer  them  affirmatively,  there  is  all  the  more 
need  that  you  should  read  them  and  heed  also  the 
divine  injunction,  "Ye  must  be  born  again." 


CHAPTER  ONE 

Before  we  indulge  in  any  adverse  criticisms  upon 
this  book  we  must  thank  the  author,  Reverend  Bruce 
Kinney,  for  a  statement  made  in  the  preface  regard- 
ing the  Reorganized  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter 
Day  Saints.  He  says: 

Nothing  that  may  be  said  in  this  book  must  be  taken  as 
necessarily  applying  to  the  Reorganized  Church  of  Jesus 
Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints,  having  headquarters  at  Lamoni, 
Iowa.  The  official  name  of  the  Utah  Church  does  not  have 
the  word  "Reorganized."  The  Iowa  Church  claims  to  be  the 
true  church,  asserts  that  after  the  death  of  Joseph  Smith 
the  control  should  have  passed  to  his  son  and  namesake,  now 
their  head,  and  that  Brigham  Young  usurped  authority  and 
corrupted  the  practices  and  doctrines  of  the  church.  The 
Iowa  adherents  of  Joseph  Smith  are  called  "Josephites"  by 
their  Utah  brethren  and  they,  in  turn,  hurl  the  epithet 
"Brighamites"  at  the  Utah  Church. 

The  Iowa  Church  accepts  the  Book  of  Mormon  and  some  of 
the  Doctrine  and  Covenants,  but  repudiates  polygamy.  To 
further  set  forth  their  differences  is  not  within  the  scope  of 
this  work.  It  may  be  said,  however,  that  the  Josephites  are 
a  law-abiding  body  of  American  citizens  and  that  there  is 
no  direct  descendant  of  the  original  prophet  in  the  fellowship 
of  the  Utah  Church,  the  present  president  of  that  church, 
Joseph  F.  Smith,  being  a  nephew  of  Joseph  Smith,  jr. — Mor- 
monism,  the  Islam  of  America,  Preface,  p.  10. 

Mr.  Kinney  should  have  credit  for  making  this 
very  fair  statement  regarding  our  position: 

WHY  DO  WE  REVIEW  THIS  BOOK? 

This  distinction  having  been  made  so  clearly  at 
the  very  beginning,  we  may  be  asked  why  we  con- 

3  • 


cern  ourselves  with  the  book  at  all.  To  this  we  re- 
ply that  it  is  not  our  intention  to  make  any  attack 
upon  those  portions  of  the  work  which  are  devoted 
to  Utah  Mormonism  (mainly  included  in  chapters 
3  to  6,  inclusive) .  But  the  first  two  chapters  are 
devoted  to  Joseph  Smith,  the  Book  of  Mormon,  and 
the  history  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter 
Day  Saints  prior  to  the  rise  of  Utah  Mormonism. 
With  these  chapters  we  are  more  concerned  than 
any  other  people.  The  civil  courts  have  twice  de- 
cided that  the  Reorganized  Church  of  Jesus  Christ 
of  Latter  Day  Saints  is  the  true  successor  to  and 
continuation  of  the  church  founded  by  Joseph  Smith, 
and  continued  under  his  administration  until  his 
death,  in  1844.  (See  decision  by  Judge  L.  S.  Sher- 
man, Court  of  Common  Pleas,  Lake  County,  Ohio, 
1880;  also  decision  of  Judge  John  F.  Philips,  Cir- 
cuit Court  of  the  United  States,  Western  District  of 
Missouri,  Western  Division,  1894.) 

The  first  of  these  decisions  in  part  reads : 

That  the  church  in  Utah,  the  Defendant,  of  which  John 
Taylor  is  president,  has  materially  and  largely  departed  from 
the  faith,  doctrines,  laws,  ordinances  and  usages  of  said 
original  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints,  and 
has  incorporated  into  its  system  of  faith  the  doctrines  of  celes- 
tial marriage  and  plurality  of  wives,  and  the  doctrine  of 
Adam-god  worship,  contrary  to  the  laws  and  constitution  of 
said  original  church. 

And  the  Court  do  further  find  that  the  Plaintiff,  the  Reor- 
ganized Cnurch  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints,  is  the 
true  and  lawful  continuation  of,  and  successor  to  the  said 
original  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints,  organ- 
ized in  1830,  and  is  entitled  in  law  to  all  its  rights  and  prop- 
erty. 

In  the  light  of  these  two  decisions,  which  are  based 


on  the  law  and  the  facts  in  the  case,  it  will  be  seen 
that  any  attack  upon  the  character  of  Joseph  Smith 
or  the  church  organized  by  him  is  a  matter  of  con- 
cern to  us,  to  say  the  least.  Though  we  may  assist 
good  Christian  people  everywhere  in  everylegitimate 
effort  to  extirpate  polygamy  and  other  evils  of  Utah 
Mormonism,  we  can  not  join  with  them  in  an  attack 
upon  Joseph  Smith  and  a  people  who  were  in  no  way 
responsible  for  these  evils.  We  trust  that  this  is 
perfectly  clear,  and  that  no  one  will  be  so  heavy- 
witted  as  to  imagine  that  our  challenge  of  the  first 
two  chapters  of  this  book  in  any  way  allies  us  with 
Utah  Mormonism. 

We  are  prepared  to  defend  the  teachings  and  doc- 
trines of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day 
Saints  (when  those  teachings  and  doctrines  are  cor- 
rectly stated) ,  from  its  organization  until  the  death 
of  Joseph  Smith  in  1844,  and  the  teachings  and  doc- 
trines of  the  Reorganization  from  its  beginning  until 
now.  But  we  have  no  defense  to  make  of  the  record 
and  teachings  of  that  body  of  people  led  by  Brigham 
Young  to  Utah ;  nor  of  the  so-called  revelation  sanc- 
tioning polygamy  by  them  interpolated  in  the  Book 
of  Doctrine  and  Covenants,  believing  it  to  be  con- 
trary to  all  the  teachings  of  the  early  church  and  con- 
trary to  the  precepts  of  the  Bible,  Book  of  Mormon 
and  Doctrine  and  Covenants. 

THE  SIN  OF  POVERTY  AND  THE  CRIME  OF  VISIONS. 

Mr.  Kinney  says  that  he  lays  no  claim  to  origin- 
ality, excepting  in  arrangement  of  material.  That 
statement  is  rendered  somewhat  unnecessary  by  the 
fact  that  he  begins  the  first  chapter  of  his  book  by 

5 


saying  of  Joseph  Smith :  "His  parents  and  relatives 
were  all  poor,  ne'er-do-well  visionaries,  guided  by 
dreams,  seeking  hidden  treasures  and  often  in  con- 
flict with  the  officers  of  the  law." 
• 

This  has  been  the  stereotyped  approach  to  this  sub- 
ject by  the  opposition  for  so  long  that  we  would  have 
felt  startled  and  disturbed  had  he  begun  in  some 
other  way. 

So  Joseph  Smith's  parents  and  relatives  were 
poor!  Well,  it  is  no  crime  to  have  poor  relations; 
if  it  were,  the  jails  would  all  be  full.  How  much 
money  must  one  have  before  he  would  be  eligible  to 
become  a  prophet  of  God,  or  the  father  of  a  prophet? 

But  they  had  trouble  with  the  officers  of  the  law! 
So  did  Paul  and  Silas.  So  did  John  Wesley.  So  did 
Roger  Williams,  one  of  the  patron  saints  of  Mr. 
Kinney's  own  denomination.  Why  did  Mr.  Kinney 
fail  to  mention  even  one  crime  of  which  they  were 
convicted,  citing  us  to  the  charges  and  findings  of 
the  court? 

They  were  believers  in  inspired  dreams  and  vis- 
ions! Witness  Joseph  and  Mary  driven  from  the 
Holy  Land  to  inhospitable  Egypt, — by  a  dream! 
Witness  the  boy  Samuel  disturbed  by  night  by  a 
visiori!  Review  the  sacred  history  of  the  past  and 
name  the  men  and  women  of  godliness  who  were  not 
visionaries  and  dreamers. 

Evidently  Mr.  Kinney  does  not  believe  in  dreams. 
The  poet  says :  "When  dreams  depart,  then  it  is  time 
to  die." 

GOD   MAY   SPEAK,   SAYS   MR.    KINNEY. 

While  we  are  on  this  line  of  thought  we  must 

6 


thank  Mr..Kinney  for  another  admission  (found  on 
page  48  of  his  work)  where  he  says: 

God  may  reveal  himself  to  any  man,  woman  or  child,  but 
that  he  would  choose  such  a  man  as  we  know  Smith  all  his 
life  to  be  his  "vicegerent  on  earth"  we  can  not  for  a  moment 
believe. 

This  admission  that  "God  may  reveal  himself  to 
any  man,  woman,  or  child,"  is  a  recession  from  the 
position  strenuously  maintained  by  the  colleagues 
of  Mr.  Kinney  for  the  past  eighty  years  or  more, 
that  the  day  of  revelation  is  past.  We  have  been 
told  by  the  clergy  of  nearly  all  denominations 
that  revelation  ceased  with  John  on  Patmos.  This 
admission  comes  as  a  grateful  change.  Our  con- 
tention that  there  may  be  prophets  in  the  church, 
and  that  inspired  dreams,  visions,  and  revelations 
may  be  received  at  any  time,  is  practically  conceded. 
Instead  of  being  told,  as  formerly,  that  it  is  impos- 
sible that  Joseph  Smith  should  have  received  the 
revelations  that  he  claimed  to  receive,  because  God 
does  not  give  revelations  in  this  age,  we  are  now  told 
that  it  is  quite  possible  for  any  man,  woman,  or  child 
to  receive  revelation,  but  not  probable  that  Joseph 
Smith  received  any,  because  of  his  character. 

Now  this  objection  can  be  removed,  for  we  can 
produce  witnesses  who  knew  Joseph  Smith  well  and 
who  testify  that  his  character  was  most  excellent. 
This  at  least  balances  the  testimony  of  those  who 
affirm  that  he  was  a  bad  man ;  and  in  such  a  situation 
wisdom  directs  that  we  should  turn  from  the  testi- 
mony of  bigoted  enemies  and  partisan  friends  and 
examine  the  revelations  that  he  claimed  to  receive, 
judging  them  on  their  merits.  This  would  be  the 

7 


safest  course  to  pursue,  not  trusting  the  statements 
of  intolerant  enemies,  for  the  Right  Reverend  Bishop 
Spalding,  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  says : 

Those  who  attacked  the  Mormons  felt  moved  to  publish 
everything  they  could  discover  or  invent  to  the  discredit  of 
"Joe  Smith"  and  his  parents. — Joseph  Smith,  Jr.,  as  a  Trans- 
lator, p.  4. 

Mr.  Kinney,  in  fact,  does  make  an  effort  to  ex- 
amine some  of  these  revelations,  and  the  straits  to 
which  he  is  driven  in  his  effort  to  find  something 
damnable  in  them  is  illustrated  in  a  startling  and 
spectacular  manner,  as  we  shall  show  by  three  ex- 
amples. 

EXAMPLE  NUMBER  ONE. 

On  page  18  of  his  book  he  says: 

Smith  soon  received  a  revelation  in  which  the  Lord  was 
reported  as  saying,  "I  will  consecrate  the  riches  of  the  Gen- 
tiles unto  my  people"  (Doctrine  and  Covenants  42).  It  is 
said  that  this  was  so  liberally  interpreted  by  his  people  that 
they  were  soon  in  disrepute  among  their  neighbors,  and  in 
1832  Smith  and  his  associate,  Rigdon,  were  tarred  and  feath- 
ered by  a  mob. 

We  might  imagine  that  this  garbled  version  of  the 
revelation  in  question  was  based  on  a  rendition  sup- 
posed to  be  found  in  the  Book  of  Commandments  (a 
book  which  the  Saints  attempted  to  publish  in  Mis- 
souri, their  work  being  interrupted  by  the  mob  that 
destroyed  their  publishing  house.  The  work,  so  far 
as  carried  out,  contained  many  typographical  errors 
and  was  never  indorsed  by  the  church.)  But  we  may 
not  indulge  this  supposition,  because  Mr.  Kinney 
himself  cites  us  to  Doctrine  and  Covenants,  section 
42,  which  shows  that  he  knew  the  accepted  and  ac- 

8 


credited  version  and  indicates  that  he  had  it  before 
him  at  the  time.  If  not  before  him,  it  certainly 
should  have  been  in  the  preparation  of  a  textbook  of 
this  kind,  in  which  truth  and  accuracy  should  be 
found,  and  in  the  preparation  of  which  the  golden 
rule  should  govern. 

Now  note  iSe  true  rendition  of  this  commandment : 
"I  will  consecrate  of  the  riches  of  those  ivho  embrace 
my  gospel  among  the  Gentiles,  unto  the  poor  of  my 
people  who  are  of  the  house  of  Israel." — Doctrine 
and  Covenants  42:  11. 

WHY  DID  MR.  KINNEY  OMIT  THESE  WORDS  ? 

We  have  italicized  certain  of  the  words  omitted 
by  Mr.  Kinney.  These  words  explain  that  this  is  to 
be  a  consecration  made  by  those  who  voluntarily 
accept  the  gospel  and  unite  with  the  church;  and  it 
is  to  be  for  the  aid  of  the  poor  and  needy,  a  most 
worthy  work,  and  quite  in  line  with  the  teachings 
of  Jesus,  as  well  as  with  the  policy  of  certain  good 
Baptists,  Methodists,  and  Presbyterians,  who  since 
the  day  of  Joseph  Smith  have  awakened  to  the  neces- 
sity of  paying  tithing  regularly  into  the  church  cof- 
fers for  charitable  purposes. 

Joseph  Smith  himself  explained  it  clearly : 

Now  for  a  man  to  consecrate  his  property,  his  wife  and 
children  to  the  Lord  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  to  feed 
the  hungry,  clothe  the  naked,  visit  the  widows  and  fatherless, 
the  sick  and  afflicted;  and  do  all  he  can  to  administer  to  their 
relief  in  their  afflictions,  and  for  himself  and  his  house  to 
serve  the  Lord.  In  order  to  do  this  he  and  all  his  house  must 
be  virtuous  and  "shun  the  appearance  of  evil."  Now  if  any 
person  has  represented  anything  otherwise  than  we  now 
write  they  hare  ivillfidly  misrepresented  us. — Times  and  Sea- 
sons, vol.  1,  p.  85. 

9 


Now  this  was  the  teaching  of  that  awful  man,  "the 
worst  of  the  lot," — for  which  he  was  tarred  and 
feathered. 

Possibly  it  was  a  fine  thing  that  he  had  been  poor 
in  his  youth.  He  seemed  to  have  developed  sympathy 
for  the  poor,  who  were  so  close  to  the  heart  of  Jesus. 

Now  we  press  the  query:  Why  did  Mr.  Kinney 
omit  those  explanatory  words  from  his  quotation, 
thus  transforming  a  very  innocent  and  commendable 
statement  into  something  dark  and  damnable?  The 
reader  may  judge. 

BAPTISTS  AND  DISCIPLES  USE  TAR  AND  FEATHERS. 

Right  here  we  wish  to  remind  Mr.  Kinney  that 
the  Columbian  Encyclopedia  says:  "1832,  March 
22d,  a  mob  of  Methodists,  Baptists,  Disciples,  and 
miscellaneous  zealots  broke  into  the  prophet's  house, 
tore  him  from  his  wife's  arms,  .  .  .  and  tarred  and 
feathered  him." 

While  the  historian,  Hubert  H.  Bancroft,  says: 
"On  the  night  of  the  25th  of  March,  Smith  and  Rig- 
don  were  seized  by  a  mob,  composed  partly  of  the 
Campbellites,  Methodists,  and  Baptists  of  Hiram.  .  .  . 
The  captives  were  roughly  treated,  and  expected  to 
be  killed;  but  after  they  had  been  stripped,  beaten, 
and  well  covered  with  tar  and  feathers,  they  were 
released." — History  of  Utah,  p.  90. 

It  is  not  a  matter  of  surprise  that  Mr.  Kinney 
should  seek  to  palliate  the  conduct  of  his  fellow 
Baptists  on  that  occasion,  and  that  others  should 
smile  at  the  work  of  their  fellow  "Campbellites"  or 
Disciples ;  but  when  the  facts  are  all  known,  of  all 
the  people  involved  in  that  dastardly  act,  the  Saints 
have  least  cause  for  shame,  and  our  friends  of  these 

10 


popular  churches  should  be  last  to  mention  the  affair. 
This  is  but  one  of  many  instances  showing  who  the 
lawbreakers  were  in  those  days.f 

EXAMPLE    NUMBER    TWO. 

On  pages  56  and  57  Mr.  Kinney  considers  the 
testimony  of  the  witnesses  to  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
He  attempts  to  prove  that  the  eight  witnesses  were 
granted  privileges  that  the  Lord  had  previously  said 
should  be  given  to  the  three  and  to  none  >else.  He 
attempts  to  make  it  appear  that  the  Lord  had  said 
that  no  one  but  the  three  should  see  the  plates,  ask- 
ing if  it  is  possible  that  the  Lord  had  "forgotten  that 
he  said,  when  he  showed  the  plates  to  the  'Three/ 
that  no  one  else  in  that  generation  should  see  them?" 
He  cites  the  reader  to  Doctrine  and  Covenants  5.  No 
such  statement  appears  in  section  5;  but  it  does  ap- 
pear that  the  Lord  said  that  to  none  else  would  be 
given  power  to  receive  "this  same  testimony."  While 
the  eight  saw  the  plates,  they  did  not  receive  the 
same  testimony,  for  the  three  testify  that  an  angel 
appeared  unto  them  bearing  the  plates,  and  that  the 
voice  of  the  Lord  commanded  them  to  testify.  The 
eight  bore  no  such  testimony,  nor  anything  like  it. 
Many  people  saw  Jesus ;  but  to  only  a  few,  compara- 
tively, was  the  peculiar  testimony  given  that  Peter 
bore  (see  Matthew  16:  16). 

WHY  DID  MR.  KINNEY  DO  THIS? 

But  here  comes  the  most  damaging  feature  of  all.- 
Mr.  Kinney  says : 

The  "Eigjit"  in  their  testimony  say: 

We  have  seen  the  plates  which  contain  this  record,  .  .  . 
and  we  also  testify  that  we  have  seen  the  engravings  which 

11 


are  upon  the  plates;  and  they  have  been  shown  to  us  by  the 
power  of  God  ...  an  angel  came  down  from  heaven  and  he 
brought  and  laid  before  our  eyes  and  it  is  by  the  grace  of 
God  that  we  beheld  and  saw  the  plates. 

Here  he  has  taken  language  found  only  in  the  testi- 
mony of  the  "three"  and  ascribes  it  to  the  "eight"  in 
an  effort  to  prove  that  the  "eight"  received  some- 
thing that  the  Lord  had  previously  said  none  but  the 
"three'  should  receive,  thus  discrediting  the  revela- 
tions. The  testimonies  of  the  witnesses  are  found  in 
the  front  of  every  copy  of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  and 
anyone  who  cares  to  do  so  can  verify  our  statement 
and  see  for  themselves  what  Mr.  Kinney  did. 

Why  did  Mr.  Kinney  do  this?  Is  it  necessary  to 
do  these  things  in  order  to  find  flaws  in  the  revela- 
tions? Are  there  no  evils  there  that  can  be  pointed 
out  in  the  text  as  it  stands,  without  garbling  and 
twisting? 

If  this  is  simply  carelessness,  as  we  prefer  to 
think  of  it,  of  what  value  is  the  book  as  a  textbook 
for  the  study  of  church  societies?  If  there  were 
any  ulterior  motive  back  of  it,  which  we  would  not 
suppose  to  be  the  case  with  a  member  of  the  Baptist 
clergy,  the  situation  would  be  even  worse. 

Are  such  methods  fair?  Does  this  accord  with 
the  indorsement  of  the  Editorial  Committee  of  the 
Council  of  Women  for  Home  Missions?  They  say 
on  page  7  of  this  book:  "Doctor  Kinney's  point  of 
view  is  intelligent,  broad,  and  just." 

EXAMPLE  NUMBER  THREE. 

On  page  63  Mr.  Kinney  says: 

There  is  a  long  prophecy  (pp.  65-67)  in  reference  to  Jos- 
eph Smith  in  which  it  is  said  that  he  was  to  be  a  descendant 

12 


in  direct  line  of  the  elder  Joseph  through  Lehi.  Now  the 
account  further  says  that  all  the  Nephites  were  destroyed  and 
only  Lamanites  (Indians)  were  left  upon  this  hemisphere. 
Therefore  Smith  must  have  been  an  Indian,  but  his  mother 
tells  us  that  he  was  descended  from  one  Robert  Smith  who 
lived  in  England  three  hundred  years  ago.  It  will  not  do  to 
say  that  he  was  the  "spiritual"  seed  of  Lehi,  for  in  the  proph- 
ecy the  expression  "fruit  of  thy  loins"  is  used  too  often  in 
referring  to  Joseph. 

The  descendants  of  Joseph  of  Egypt  through 
Ephraim  and  Manasseh  were  to  be  scattered  among 
the  nations,  becoming  a  "multitude  of  nations,"  and 
a  "multitude  of  people,"  as  the  Bible  assures  us.  It 
would  not  be  impossible  or  even  improbable  that 
Joseph  Smith's  lineage  might  run  back  to  this  man, 
even  though  his  immediate  ancestors  may  have  lived 
in  England. 

But  in  order  to  make  a  case  Mr.  Kinney  inserts  the 
clause,  "through  Lehi,"  dragging  in  a  proposition 
that  does  not  appear  anywhere  in  the  Book  of  Mor- 
mon. It  is  not  stated  anywhere  in  the  book  that  this 
descent  was  to  be  through  Lehi,  neither  did  Joseph 
Smith  to  our  knowledge  ever  make  such  a  claim. 

Are  errors  so  scarce  in  the  Book  of  Mormon  that 
it  is  necessary  for  critics  to  manufacture  them? 
Why  pass  by  the  absurdities  which  he  says  abound, 
and  settle  upon  one  of  his  own  making?  Is  this  an- 
other example  of  carelessness?  The  reader  may 
decide. 

We  have  selected  three  instances  which  demon- 
strate beyond  a  doubt  that  this  book,  so  far  as  the 
first  two  chapters  are  concerned,  is  not  a  reliable 
textbook.  However  accurate  Mr.  Kinney's  personal 
observations  may  be  upon  conditions  existing  in 
Utah,  as  set  forth  in  chapters  three  to  six,  inclusive, 

13 


his  book  is  not  reliable  as  a  textbook  on  the  work  and 
teachings  of  Joseph  Smith  and  the  early  church  prior 
to  1844. 


CHAPTER  TWO 

Whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye  even 
so  to  them. — Jesus. 

Before  beginning  this  review  we  wrote  to  Mr. 
Kinney,  calling  his  attention  to  certain  matters  that 
we  intended  to  mention.  Our  letter  follows: 

LAMONI,  IOWA,  May  15,  1913. 
REVEREND  BRUCE  KINNEY, 
TOPEKA,  KANSAS. 

Dear  Sir:  A  correspondent  of- the  SAINTS'  HERALD  mentions 
two  matters  set  forth  in  your  book  entitled,  Mormonism,  the 
Islam  of  America,  concerning  which  we  have  thought  it 
best  to  write  you  personally.  On  page  fifty-seven  of  your 
book  you  quote  language  which  purports  to  be  taken  from 
the  testimony  of  the  eight  witnesses  of  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
This  is  used  to  indicate  that  the  Lord  gave  to  the  eight  wit- 
nesses a  testimony  which  he  had  previously  said  should  only 
be  received  by  the  three  witnesses.  The  facts  are  that  the 
language  which  you  ascribe  to  the  eight  you  have  taken  from 
the  testimony  of  the  three,  as  anyone  can  see  by  referring  to 
the  testimony  found  in  every  copy  of  the  Book  of  Mormon. 
The  correspondent  charges  that  this  indicates  either  gross 
carelessness  upon  your  part,  or  downright  dishonesty.  But 
before  commenting  at  any  length  upon  this  in  our  publica- 
tion, we  thought  it  only  just  to  write  to  you  personally  and 
hear  any  explanation  that  you  might  wish  to  make  regarding 
the  matter. 

Again,  on  page  eighteen  of  your  book,  you  say,  "Smith 

14 


soon  received  a  revelation  in  which  the  Lord  was  reported  as 
saying,  'I  will  consecrate  the  riches  of  the  Gentiles  unto  my 
people/  "  You  cite  the  reader  to  Doctrine  and  Covenants, 
section  42.  The  language  as  found  in  the  Doctrine  and  Cove- 
nants, section  42  reads :  "I  will  consecrate  of  the  riches  of 
those  who  embrace  my  gospel,  among  the  Gentiles,  unto  the 
poor  of  my  people  who  are  of  the  house  of  Israel."  From  this 
it  will  be  seen  that  the  consecration  of  money  was  to  be  made 
only  by  those  who  were  converted  from  among  the  Gentiles, 
and  voluntarily  gave  of  their  riches  for  the  support  of  the 
poor  and  needy.  Your  omission  of  the  explanatory  words 
could  hardly  have  been  accidental,  but  as  in  the  former  case 
we  have  thought  best  to  write  personally  before  commenting 
at  length  in  the  HERALD. 

We  shall  be  glad  to  hear  any  statement  that  you  may  wish 
to  make  regarding  the  matter.  If  the  work  founded  by 
Joseph  Smith  was  a  fraud,  as  you  contend,  you,  yourself, 
would  hardly  care  to  be  placed  in  the  attitude  of  combating 
it  by  dishonest  and  contemptible  methods. 

Sincerely  yours, 

ELBERT  A.  SMITH. 

To  this  Mr.  Kinney  replied  as  follows: 

TOPEKA,  KANSAS,  May  21,  1913. 
ELBERT  A.  SMITH, 

LAMONI,  IOWA. 

My  Dear  Sir:  Yours  of  the  15th  at  hand  and  would  have 
received  earlier  attention  except  for  the  fact  that  I  am  just 
recovering  from  a  serious  illness  of  several  weeks.  I  have 
not  the  time  or  strength  to  look  up  the  matter  to  which  you 
refer,  as  my.  books  of  reference  just  now  are  not  convenient. 
After  all,  it  does  not  seem  to  me  to  make  much  difference  as 
far  as  the  essential  point  is  concerned,  as  to  whether  the 
"8"  or  the  "3"  uses  that  expression,  and  I  fail  to  see  also 
any  essential  difference  when  the  language  is  carefully  ex- 
amined in  your  alleged  correction  of  my  quotation  of  section 
42  of  the  Doctrine  and  Covenants. 

Your  letter  is  very  courteous,  but  I  wish  to  say  that  I 
have  received  several  lettters  from  your  people  that  were 
anything  but  courteous,  some  of  which  made  threats,  which 

15 


if  I  cared  to  push  in  the  United  States  courts  might  get  them 
into  trouble  for  violation  of  law,  but  I  don't  care  for  anything 
of  this  nature,  and  I  shall  absolutely  decline  to  enter  into  a 
discussion  public  or  private  with  you  or  any  of  your  rep- 
resentatives on  this  topic.  It  does  not  bother  me  what  you  do 
or  don't  do.  If  you  will  carefully  read  at  the  top  of  page  10 
in  the  preface  of  my  book  you  will  notice  what  I  say.  "Noth- 
ing that  I  say  in  this  book  must  be  taken  as  necessarily  ap- 
plying to  the  Reorganized  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  the  Lat- 
ter Day  Saints,  having  headquarters  at  Lamoni,  Iowa."  I 
lived  too  long  at  Piano,  Illinois,  not  to  know  something  about 
your  people,  some  of  them  are  my  personal  friends,  though 
we  radically  disagree  as  to  our  beliefs;  that  is  my  right  as 
well  as  theirs.  Your  people  have  always  maintained  that  you 
are  not  at  all  in  sympathy  with  the  Utah  Church.  I  am  in 
a  position  to  know  that  there  is  a  feeling  in  the  minds  of 
some  of  those  who  are  the  closest  students  of  the  Mormon 
situation  that  there  is  some  kind  of  a  secret  alliance  of  under- 
standing between  your  church  and  the  Utah  Church.  I  have 
always  denied  this.  If  you  people  can  not  ignore  some  trivial 
things  which  you  do  -not  like  in  my  book  for  example ;  and 
if  you  can  not  make  common  cause  with  us  against  the  Utah 
hierarchy  you  will  convince  many  and  myself  among  the  rest 
that  you  are  in  secret  collusion  with  the  Utah  Church,  and 
have  the  same  motive  as  they  have.  If  you  will  adopt  this 
policy  and  ignore  some  of  these  things  upon  which  we  disagree 
no  one  will  know  that  anything  in  this  book  does  apply  to 
your  people.  If  you  make  a  "big  noise"  the  people  will  know 
and  you  will  attract  unfavorable  attention  to  yourself. 
Sincerely  yours, 

BRUCE  KINNEY. 

MR.   KINNEY'S  LETTER  EXAMINED. 

We  will  comment  briefly  upon  four  points  sug- 
gested in  the  letter  from  Mr.  Kinney. 

Regarding  the  threatening  and  abusive  letters 
which  Mr.  Kinney  says  he  has  received  from  some 
of  our  people:  Frankly,  we  do  not  believe  that  any 

16 


of  our  representative  men  have  been  writing  to  Mr. 
Kinney  in  a  threatening  and  abusive  manner.  Prob- 
ably these  letters  came  from  irresponsible  persons. 
We  have  written  Mr.  Kinney,  requesting  him  to  give 
us  the  names  of  those  who  have  written  to  him  in 
this  manner.  Our  people  should  ever  be  courteous 
in  their  treatment  of  others,  as  becomes  those  who 
profess  to  be  followers  of  Jesus. 

BLINDNESS  HATH  HAPPENED  IN  PART  TO  MR.  KINNEY. 

We  wrote  to  Mr.  Kinney  calling  his  attention  to 
the  fact  that  in  his  book  a  professed  quotation  from 
the  Book  of  Doctrine  and  Covenants  was  published, 
vital  parts  of  the  quotation  being  omitted  in  such  a 
way  as  to  transform  an  entirely  innocent  command- 
ment or  statement  into  one  that  might  be  considered 
very  damaging,  and  very  offensive  to  honest  people, 
if  not  understood,  and  to  the  further  fact  that  in 
order  to  make  a  point  which  did  not  in  reality  exist, 
language  was  taken  from  the  testimony  of  the  three 
witnesses  to  the  Book  of  Mormon,  and  was  ascribed 
to  the  eight. 

We  wished  to  give  Mr.  Kinney  an  opportunity  to 
defend  his  course  in  this  matter  if  it  was  intentional, 
or  to  acknowledge  an  error  if  his  conduct  was  the 
result  of  a  mistake.  His  explanation  is  before  the 
reader.  We  do  not  care  to  make  any  comment. 
Nothing  that  we  would  have  the  heart  to  say  would 
be  more  damaging  than  his  own  statement  that  he 
does  not  see  that  it  makes  any  difference. 

Is  this  according  to  the  golden  rule? 

17 


NO  SECRET  ALLIANCE. 

Regarding  the  statement  in  his  letter  that  some 
believe  that  there  exists  a  secret  alliance  or  under- 
standing between  the  Utah  Church  and  the  Reorgan- 
ied  Church:  Mr.  Kinney,  from  his  experience  with 
our  people  in  Piano  and  later  with  the  Mormons  in 
Utah,  knows  very  well  that  such  an  alliance  djoes 
not  exist.  Yet  he  professes  to  be  ready  to  conclude 
that  it  does  exist  if  we  venture  to  refute  any  state- 
ments made  in  his  book  reflecting  upon  the  charac- 
ter and  work  of  Joseph  Smith  and  the  early  church. 
Because  we  are  in  sympathy  with  legitimate  efforts 
to  extirpate  polygamy  and  kindred  evils  in  Utah, 
must  we  remain  silent  when  an  attack  is  made  upon 
the  character  of  Joseph  Smith,  who,  as  we  believe, 
was  in  no  way  responsible  for  those  evils,  and  upon 
the  Book  of  Mormon,  which  we  accept  as  a  revela- 
tion from  God? 

We  believe  that  Mr.  Kinney,  upon  mature  reflec- 
tion, will  readily  conclude  that  our  defense  of  the 
Book  of  Mormon  and  the  mission  of  Joseph  Smith 
in  no  way  compromises  us  with  Utah  Mormonism, 
in  view  of  the  fact  previously  cited  that  the  courts 
have  twice  decided  that  Utah  Mormonism  is  not  a 
legitimate  outgrowth  of  the  church  founded  by  Jos- 
eph Smith. 

Mr.  Kinney  thinks  that  we  should  make  common 
cause  with  other  churches  against  the  Utah  hier- 
archy. This  we  are  willing  to  do,  so  long  as  legiti- 
mate methods  are  used,  either  to  curb  and  restrain 
the  teaching  and  practice  of  polygamy,  or  to  convert 
members  of  the  Utah  Church  to  something  higher 

18 


and  better.    Our  works  in  that  regard  are  our  best 
defense. 

OUR  PEOPLE  PIONEERS  IN   UTAH    MISSION   WORK. 

Mr.  Kinney  tells  about  the  hardships  endured  by 
the  missionaries  of  his  church  (the  Baptist  Church) 
and  other  denominations  in  early  days  when  they 
established  missions  in  Utah.  The  Reorganized 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints  was 
the  pioneer  in  this  work,  and  he  can  not  tell  us  any- 
thing about  the  trials  and  hardships  of  those  early 
days  when  fearless  men  went  into  Utah,  prepared 
to  defy  the  power  of  Brigham  Young,  and  to  de- 
nounce polygamy  in  its  stronghold. 

We  first  established  our  mission  there  in  1863, 
when  Elder  E.  C.  Briggs  opened  up  the  work  in 
Utah.  This  was  eighteen  years  before  the  Baptist 
Church  established  its  mission,  according  to  the  date 
given  by  Mr.  Kinney  (page  173).  Other  churches, 
according  to  his  figures,  opened  their  missions  in  the 
following  order:  Congregational  Church,  1864; 
Protestant  Episcopal,  1867;  Methodist  Episcopal, 
1870;  Presbyterian,  1871. 

During  the  years  of  our  mission  work  there  we 
have  probably  made  more  converts  than  any  other 
one  denomination.  And  whereas  Mr.  Kinney  com- 
plains that  many  of  the  converts  from  Mormonism 
made  by  the  other  churches  return  to  their  former 
faith,  we  have  had  very  little  trouble  in  that  regard, 
as  most,  if  not  all  of  our  conversions  have  been  per- 
manent. 

19 


WILL  NOT  DISCUSS   THE  QUESTION. 

We  notice  that  he  says,  "I  shall  absolutely  decline 
to  enter  into  a  discussion  public  or  private  with  you 
or  any  of  your  representatives  on  this  topic." 

We  had  no  thought  of  drawing  Mr.  Kinney  into  a 
debate.  His  decision  in  that  matter  does  credit  to 
his  discretion.  It  may  not  appear  courageous,  but  it 
is  discreet. 

So  much  for  Mr.  Kinney's  letter.  Frankly  we  do 
not  believe  that  he  intended  to  be  dishonest  in  his 
treatment  of  the  subject,  but  prefer  to  think  that  he 
passed  over  the  matter  carelessly,  as  many  others 
have  done,  and  instead  of  giving  careful  research  to 
original  textbooks  of  the  faith,  he  accepted  the  state- 
ments of  sensational  writers  who  had  preceded  him 
and  were  thoroughly  dishonest  and  unfair  in  their 
treatment  of  the  the  subject, 

So,  however  accurate  his  personal  observations  in 
Utah  may  be,  as  set  forth  in  chapters  three  to  six, 
inclusive,  his  digest  of  the  early  history  of  the  church 
and  its  teachings  is  utterly  unreliable. 

CRITICISMS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  MORMON. 

On  page  sixty-two  of  his  work  Mr.  Kinney  says, 
"The  accounts  of  alleged  miracles  given  in  the  Book 
of  Mormon  are  puerile  in  the  extreme." 

Mr.  Kinney  is  making  exactly  the  same  criticism 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon  that  Ingersoll  made  of  the 
Bible.  In  one  of  his  lectures,  Mr.  Ingersoll  said: 

There  must  be  a  mistake  somewhere  or  somehow.  Do  you 
believe  the  real  God — if  there  is  one — ever  killed  a  man  for 
making  hair-oil.  And  yet  you  find  in  the  pentateuch  that 
God  gave  Moses  a  recipe  for  making  hair-oil  to  grease  Aaron's 

20 


beard;  and  said  if  anybody  made  the  same  hair-oil  he  should 
be  killed.  And  he  gave  him  a  formula  for  making  ointment, 
and  he  said  if  anybody  made  ointment  like  that  he  should  be 
killed.  I  think  that  is  carrying  patent  laws  to  excess.  There 
must  be  some  mistake  about  it.  I  can  not  imagine  the  infinite 
creator  of  all  the  shining  worlds  giving  a  recipe  for  hair-oil. 
Do  you  believe  that  the  real  God  came  down  to  Mount  Sinai 
with  a  lot  of  patterns  for  making  a  tabernacle — patterns 
for  tongs,  for  snuffers  and  such  things.  Do  you  believe 
God  came  down  on  that  mountain  and  told  Moses  how  to 
cut  a  coat,  and  how  it  should  be  trimmed? — Colonel  R.  G. 
Ingersoll,  Forty-four  Lectures  Complete. 

Concerning  the  Bible  Mr.  Ingersoll  was  an  infidel. 
Concerning  the  Book  of  Mormon,  Mr.  Kinney  is  an 
infidel;  and  possibly  if  he  were  questioned  closely 
regarding  some  of  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  Bible, 
he  would  not  be  found  very  sound  in  the  faith  in 
that  particular.  In  any  event  he  is  as  unjust  and 
as  wide  of  the  mark  in  his  criticism  of  the  Book  of 
Mormon  as  Ingersoll  was  in  his  similar  criticism  of 
the  Bible.  The  fact  is  that  most  of  the  stock  argu- 
ments used  against  the  Book  of  Mormon  are  bor- 
rowed from  infidels  who  first  used  them  against  the 
Bible. 

On  page  sixty  he  says :  "Whoever  was  the  author 
of  this  book  had  various  pet  words  and  expressions 
which  are  used  over  and  over  again  in  spite  of  the 
absurdity/' 

This  may  be  true  regarding  some  parts  of  the  Book 
of  Mormon,  concerning  others  it  is  untrue.  It  is 
equally  true  concerning  some  parts  of  the  Bible,  as 
infidels  affirm;  for  instance,  read  this: 

And  if  they  be  ashamed  of  all  that  they  have  done,  show 
them  the  form  of  the  house,  and  the  fashion  thereof,  and  the 
goings  out  thereof,  and  the  comings  in  thereof,  and  all  the 

21 


forms  thereof,  and  all  the  ordinances  thereof,  and  all  the 
forms  thereof,  and  all  the  laws  thereof,  and  write  it  in  their 
sight,  that  they  may  keep  the  whole  form  thereof,  and  all  the 
ordinances  thereof,  and  do  them. — Ezekiel  43:  11. 

In  neither  instance  is  the  inspiration  of  the  book 
destroyed  by  the  factvthat  some  of  the  writers  were 
not  polished  in  their  style. 

He  says  concerning  the  Book  of  Mormon :  "Every- 
thing is  stilted,  complicated,  diffuse,  meaningless  or 
even  brutal/'  To  refute  this  one  has  but  to  read 
the  following  language  from  the  Book  of  Mormon: 

Wherefore,  my  brethren,  hear  me,  and  hearken  to  the  word 
of  the  Lord:  For  there  shall  not  any  man  among  you  have 
save  it  be  one  wife;  and  concubines  he  shall  have  none:  For 
I,  the  Lord  God,  delighteth  in  the  chastity  of  women. 

Does  Mr.  Kinney  find  this  stilted,  complicated, 
diffuse,  meaningless,  or  brutal?  These  "brutal" 
statements  are  our  bulwark  against  the  polygamy  of 
Utah  and  the  concubinage  of  other  places. 

DOES  MR.  KINNEY  KNOW  WHAT  A  "TRANSLATION"  IS? 

Mr.  Kinney  says  that  the  Book  of  Mormon  puts 
"modern  words,  expressions,  and  idioms,"  into  the 
mouths  of  crude  savages  who  lived  two  thousand  five 
hundred  years  ago. 

Mr.  Kinney  should  know  that  the  Book  of  Mormon 
is  a  TRANSLATION  and  does  not  put  a  single  modern 
word  or  expression  into  the  mouth  of  anyone  who 
lived  two  thousand  five  hundred  years  ago.  Those 
people  spoke  a  language  of  their  own;  the  Book  of 
Mormon  renders  in  English  the  ideas  that  they  ex- 
pressed in  their  language.  The  book  was  trans- 
lated into  a  modern  language  and  used  modern  words 
and  expressions,  which  was  only  natural  and  proper. 

22 


As  well  might  Mr.  Kinney,  with  childlike  ignorance, 
say  that  the  Revised  Version  of  the  Bible  puts 
modern  English  into  the  mouths  of  Paul  the  Hebrew, 
Pilate  the  Roman,  or  even  into  the  mouths  of  Moses 
and  Aaron,  and  the  Egyptian  Pharaoh.  It  is  aston- 
ishing that  such  a  criticism  should  emanate  from  a 
sane  man. 

DID  ANCIEN-T  AMERICANS  USE  IRON? 

Mr.  Kinney  says  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  the 
aborigines  of  this  country  knew  about  iron  and  steel, 
whereas  the  Book  of  Mormon  says  that  they  worked 
in  iron,  brass,  steel,  and  gold  and  silver,  during  at 
least  one  period  of  their  development. 

A.  J.  Conant,  A.  M.,  author  of  Footprints  of  Van- 
ished Races  in  the  Mississippi  Valley,  says: 

And  to  the  question  whether  they  possessed  a  knowledge  of 
working  iron,  the  wise  man  will  hesitate  a  long  time  before  he 
answers  in  the  negative. 

It  is  significant  that  Mr.  Kinney  did  not  hesitate. 
He  evidently  thinks  that  the  immense  temples  and 
stone  buildings  of  ancient  Mexico  and  Central 
America  were  erected  and  carved  and  ornamented 
with  inscriptions  done  in  the  solid  rock  with  the  aid 
of  stone  and  wooden  or  bone  implements. 

But  Mr.  Cyrus  Thomas,  author  of  American 
Archeology,  and  for  twenty-nine  years  connected 
.with  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology,  Smith- 
sonian Institution,  reports  finding  iron  implements  of 
undisputed  antiquity  in  both  United  States  and 
Mexico;  also  articles  of  gold.  He  completely  spoils 
Mr.  Kinney's  theory  by  declaring  that  it  must  be  ad- 

23 


mitted  that  these  ancient  people  had  "discovered  the 
art  of  casting  metal  in  molds." 

UNSUPPORTED  CHARGES. 

Many  serious  charges  are  made  against  the  mem- 
bers and  founders  of  the  church  during  the  early 
days  of  its  history;  but  no  evidence  is  cited  to  sup- 
port these  charges,  and  no  reliable  witnesses  are 
brought  forward,  nor  the  findings  of  any  court 
shown,  so  we  will  not  examine  these  charges  in  de- 
tail. How  easy  it  is  to  make  charges  of  a  very  dam- 
aging nature  based  on  rumor  and  the  assertions  of 
enemies,  and  how  flat  the  same  charges  may  fall 
when  both  sides  are  heard  and  accurate  and  reliable 
evidence  is  demanded. 

EVIL  STORIES  BORN  OF  RELIGIOUS  HATRED. 

The  old  stories  circulated  against  the  character  of 
Latter  Day  Saints  in  an  early  day  (though  some  of 
them  are  set  forth  in  great  detail  as  coming  from 
men  who  knew)  in  reality  had  their  origin  in  reli- 
gious hatred  and  neighborhood  scandal.  All  people 
should  know  the  unreliable  character  of  neighbor- 
hood gossip,  especially  when  it  is  tinctured  with 
denominational  bigotry.  One  encyclopedia  gravely 
says  of  Joseph  Smith: 

There  is  the  most  SATISFACTORY  EVIDENCE — THAT  OF  HIS 
ENEMIES. 

Every  religious  reformer  has  suffered  from  this, 
thing.  Men  who  claimed  to  know  swore  that  the 
good  John  Wesley  was  a  scoundrel,  a  pickpocket,  a 
traitor,  and  that  he  had  been  convicted  of  selling  gin. 
We  read:  "In  London  also,  the  Methodists  were 

24 


exposed  to  persecution  and  the  fury  of  an  enraged 
and  bestial  population."  (See  History  of  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  by  Reverend  P.  Douglass  Gorrie.) 
This  has  been  the  experience  of  nearly  every  reli- 
gious agitator,  and  Joseph  Smith  was  no  exception, 
—only  now  our  good  friends  of  the  clergy  are  not 
willing  to  let  these  stories  die.  Why  not?  Why  not 
begin  to  treat  Latter  Day  Saints  according  to  the 
golden  rule  that  Christians  profess  to  honor? 

THE  OTHER  SIDE  OF  THE  STORY. 

How  different  the  stories  told  by  men  who  were 
fair-minded  and  who  knew. 

The  Honorable  George  Edmunds,  one  of  the  best 
known  lawyers  of  western  Illinois,  an  honored  man 
in  the  community  where  the  Saints,  under  Joseph 
Smith,  had  headquarters,  at  Nauvoo,  says : 

I  can  say  for  the  Mormon  population,  so  far  as  I  knew 
them,  that  I  think  I  never  knew  so  INDUSTRIOUS,  FRUGAL,  AND 
VIRTUOUS  a  set  of  people  as  they  were. — The  Mormon  Set- 
tlement in  Illinois,  an  Address  by  Senator  0.  F.  Berry  before 
the  Illinois  State  Historical  Society,  p.  11. 

Robert  Lucas,  governor  of  Ohio  from  1832  to  1836, 
during  the  stay  of  the  Saints  at  Kirtland,  and  gov- 
ernor of  Iowa  at  the  time  of  the  settlement  at  Nau- 
voo, wrote  to  President  Van  Buren  under  date  of 
April  22,  1839,  saying: 

I  think  it  is  due  to  that  people  to  state,  that  they  had  for 
a  number  of  years  a  community  established  in  Ohio,  and  that 
while  in  that  State  they  were  (as  far  as  I  ever  heard)  be- 
lieved to  be  an  INDUSTRIOUS,  INOFFENSIVE  people;  and  I  have 
no  recollection  of  having  ever  heard  of  ANY  OF  THEM  being 
charged  in  that  State  as  violators  of  the  law. 

25 


The  Columbian  Encyclopedia  (1897)  says  of  the 
Saints  in  Missouri : 

Everywhere  was  visible  a  spirit  of  industry,  sobriety,  order, 
and  cleanliness.  It  is  only  fair  to  the  Mormons  to  state  these 
things. 

It  is  true  that  the  Kirtland  Bank  failed.  But  it 
was  started  with  good  motives,  and  was  only  one  of 
hundreds  of  similar  institutions  to  fail  during  the 
great  panic.  At  a  later  date  the  church  sent  an  agent 
back  to  Kirtland  to  settle  with  all  creditors  so  far  as 
possible.  Our  detractors,  however,  never  mention 
that  fact. 


CHAPTER  THREE 

THE   SPALDING   ROMANCE   THEORY. 

"A  very  pretty  'theory,'  and  somewhat  ingenious,  but  where 
is  the  evidence  to  support  it?" — D.  H.  Bays. 

"Barring  the  question  of  the  hearsay  character  of  the 
evidence,  I  believe  that  a  case  can  be  made  out  much 
stronger  than  the  circumstantial  evidence  upon  which  many 
a  man  has  been  hung" — A.  T.  Schroeder. 

"This  may  be  true,  but  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that 
many  an  innocent  man  has  been  hung  upon  purely  'circum- 
stantial evidence.'  .  .  .  I  need  not  remind  an  experienced  at- 
torney that  there  is  a  vast  difference  between  'hearsay 
evidence'  and  'circumstantial  evidence.'  .  .  .  The  former 
Greenleaf  peremptorily  excludes."  .  .  . — D.  H.  Bays. 

In  his  effort  to  explain  the  book  of  Mormon,  Mr. 
Kinney  has  recourse  to  the  old  Spalding  romance 
theory.  He  is  aware  of  the  existence  of  the  famous 

26 


Solomon  Spalding  manuscript  in  Oberlin  College, 
and  the  fact  that  it  bears  no  resemblance  to  the  Book 
of  Mormon ;  but  being  unwilling  to  abandon  the  old, 
worn-out  theory,  he  concludes  that  there  was  a  sec- 
ond manuscript,  an  imaginary,  enlarged  revision  of 
the  first,  which  has  never  been  discovered,  and  which 
served  as  a  basis  for  the  Book  of  Mormon.  In  this 
idea  he  joins  a  few  others  who  have  tried  to  make 
it  appear  that  there  were  two  or  even  three  of  these 
Spalding  manuscripts,  and  who  probably  would  en- 
large that  number  indefinitely,  if  necessary  to  bolster 
up  their  cause. 

Briefly  stated,  the  Spalding  theory  is  to  the  effect 
that  Solomon  Spalding,  who  died  in  1816,  wrote  a 
story  about  1811,  which  he  submitted  to  a  publisher 
in  Pittsburg,  Pennsylvania,  some  time  prior  to  the 
close  of  1814,  and  that  Sidney  Rigdon  either  stole  or 
copied  this  manuscript,  or  that  Joseph  Smith  stole  or 
copied  it  after  it  passed  from  the  hands  of  the  pub- 
lisher, according  to  the  fancy  of  the  one  defending 
the  theory,  imagination  not  being  hampered  by  facts 
or  rules  of  evidence  in  this  matter.  (The  widow  of 
Spalding,  who  is  put  forward  as  a  leading  witness, 
says  the  manuscript  was  copied  by  Rigdon,  and  the 
original  came  back  into  her  possession  and  was  later 
given  by  her  to  Doctor  Hurlbut — see  Smucker's  His- 
tory of  the  Mormons.)  The  theory  then  runs  to  the 
effect  that  from  this  manuscript  the  Book  of  Mormon 
was  concocted. 

ORIGIN  OF  THIS  CANARD. 

The  Spalding  theory  was  first  exploited  in  1834, 
in  a  book  entitled  Mormonism  Unveiled,  by  E.  D. 

27 


Howe.  Howe  was  a  "Mormon  hater"  and  was  as- 
sisted in  his  work  by  Doctor  Hurlbut,  who  was  seek- 
ing revenge  for  having  been  excommunicated  from 
the  church  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter  Day  Saints  for 
indecent  conduct.  (See  Church  History,  vol.  1,  p. 
294.) 

Hurlbut  at  the  time  was  so  vindictive  that  it  was 
necessary  for  the  civil  courts  to  put  him  under  bonds 
to  prevent  him  wounding  -or  killing  Joseph  Smith. 
(See  court  records  of  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  Char- 
don,  Geauga  County,  Ohio,  1834.)  A  murderer  at 
heart,  foiled  in  his  purpose  to  do  physical  injury,  he 
found  no  means  too  foul  for  his  use  in  assassinating 
character.  Yet  the  results  of  his  work  are  implicitly 
accepted  by  many  writers  of  to-day. 

Doctor  Hurlbut  secured  the  Spalding  manuscript 
from  the  widow  of  Reverend  Spalding  and  turned  it 
over  to  Howe,  as  is  shown  by  his  testimony  a'nd  the 
testimony  of  the  widow.  -But  Howe  did  not  see  fit 
to  publish  it,  although  to  have  done  so  would  have 
been  the  surest  way  to  have  exposed  the  fraud,  pro- 
viding, of  course,  that  his  theory  was  correct.  The 
fact  that  he  did' not  do  so  was  fatal  evidence  of  the 
weakness  of  his  position. 

Instead  of  publishing  the  manuscript  he  contented 
himself  with  publishing  affidavits  from  John  Spal- 
ding (a  brother  of  Solomon  Spalding) ,  Martha  Spal- 
ding (John's  wife) ,  Henry  Lake,  John  Miller,  Aaron 
Wright,  Oliver  Smith,  and  one  or  two  others  who 
testified  that  they  had  heard  the  Spalding  romance 
read  and  later  heard  the  Book  of  Mormon  read  and 
discovered  a  striking  resemblance  between  the  two. 

28 


THE  "MANUSCRIPT  FOUND"  COMES  TO  LIGHT. 

For  many  years  the  Spalding  manuscript  was  lost 
sight  of ;  but  in  1885,  Mr.  L.  L.  Rice,  who  over  forty 
years  previously  had  purchased  the  Painesville  Tele- 
graph from  E.  D.  Howe,  and  had  transferred  the 
printing  department,  with  type,  press,  and  manu- 
scripts to  Honolulu,  discovered  this  manuscript 
while  going  over  old  documents,  in  connection  with 
his  friend,  President  Fairchild,  of  Oberlin  College. 

They  read  the  manuscript  carefully  and  reached 
the  very  just  conclusion  that  it  could  never  have 
served  as  a  basis  for  the  Book  of  Mormon.  The 
manuscript  was  delivered  into  the  care  of  President 
Fairchild  and  was  placed  in  the  library  of  Oberlin 
College.  Mr.  Fairchild  prepared  under  his  own 
supervision  an  exact  copy  of  this  manuscript,  which 
was  published,  and  may  be  obtained  from  the  Herald 
Publishing  House,  Lamoni,  Iowa. 

This  manuscript  bore  the  following  indorsement, 
signed  by  D.  P.  Hurlbut : 

The  writings  of  Solomon  Spalding  proved  by  Aaron  Wright, 
Oliver  Smith,  John  N.  Miller  and  others.  The  testimonies 
of  the  above  gentlemen  are  now  in  my  possession. 

Mr.  Kinney  claims  that  this  manuscript  does  not 
bear  the  title  of  "Manuscript  Found"  on  the  title- 
page.  Others  have  made  the  same  criticism.  This 
is  explained  by  the  fact  that  Spalding's  widow  says 
that  the  publisher  urged  him  to  make  out  a  title-page 
and  he  refused.  But  in  the  very  introduction  of  his 
work  the  author  says  that  he  translated  it  from 
manuscript  found  in  a  cave.  This  at  once  suggests 
and  acknowledges  the  name  by  which  it  was  known 

29 


to  the  family  and  friends,  so  this  trivial  objection  is 
removed. 

DUBIOUS  BUT  "WILLING''  WITNESSES. 

Thus  we  have  traced  the  manuscript  into  the  pos- 
session of  E.  D.  Howe,  among  whose  effects  it  was 
found  by  L.  L.  Rice.  When  Howe  came  to  examine 
the  manuscript  he  did  not  publish  it,  giving  as  an 
excuse  that  it  did  not  read  as  he  expected. 

How,  then,  do  we  account  for  the  fact  that  rela- 
tives and  friends  of  Reverend  Solomon  Spalding  tes- 
tified that  the  Book  of  Mormon  resembled  his  manu- 
script story? 

Sometimes  the  human  memory  is  treacherous. 
We  have  frequently  heard  men  and  women  of  un- 
doubted veracity  in  important  cases  before  the 
courts  squarely  contradict  their  own  testimony  given 
at  a  preliminary  hearing  one  year  previous.  A  judge 
of  one  of  the  superior  courts  says  that  this  is  a  com- 
mon experience.  It  must  be  remembered  that  these 
men  and  women  whose  affidavits  Howe  used  were 
testifying  concerning  a  book  that  they  had  heard 
read  more  than  twenty  years  before  they  testified. 
How  many  of  our  readers  are  competent  to  give  ac- 
curate testimony  regarding  a  novel  that  they  casu- 
ally heard  read  twenty  or  twenty-three  years  ago,— 
especially  when  there  was  nothing  to  lead  them  to 
think  that  they  would  ever  be  called  upon  to  bear 
witness  as  to  its  character,  and  so  did  not  particu- 
larly charge  their  minds  with  its  contents?. 

They  testified  to  the  appearance  of  exactly  similar 
names  in  both  books.  How  easy  for  one  who  had 
heard  Spalding' s  manuscript  read  twenty-two  years 

30 


previously  to  imagine  that  the  word  Mormon,  ap- 
pearing in  the  Book  of  Mormon,  was  identical  with 
Mammoons,  found  in  the  Manuscript  Found,  espe- 
cially as  some  of  these  witnesses  remembered  these 
names  by  the  initial  letter  only, — as  they  declared 
that  Spalding  made  peculiar  initial  letters. 

Again  witnesses  whose  memory  has  been  made 
hazy  by  the  lapse  of  time  can  be  very  skillfully  di- 
rected in  their  testimony,  if  they  are  properly 
handled  by  an  unscrupulous  attorney.  These  people 
were  bitter  enemies  of  the  Saints.  They  hated  the 
Book  of  Mormon  and  desired  to  destroy  it.  They 
were  plastic  witnesses.  They  were  questioned  by 
men  who  were  seeking  revenge  and  were  very  skillful 
in  directing  them  in  their  testimony.  This  was 
brought  out  by  an  answer  given  by  Mrs.  McKinstry 
in  an  interview.  She  was  asked: 

When  did  you  first  think  about  the  names  in  the  Book  of 
Mormon  and  the  manuscript  agreeing? 

My  attention  was  first  called  to  it  by  some  parties  who 
asked  me  if  I  did  not  remember  it,  AND  THEN  i  REMEMBERED 
THAT  THEY  WERE., — Braden-Kelley  Debate,  p.  82. 

Thus  by  skillf.ul  questioning  and  careful  direction, 
Hurlbut  and  Howe  were  able  to  get  the  kind  of  testi- 
mony that  they  wanted  from  these  people  who  were 
trying  to  remember  the  contents  of  a  manuscript 
that  they  had  heard  read  more  than  twenty  years 
before.  They  were  obliging  but  unreliable  witnesses. 
Upon  such  a  flimsy  basis  does  the  Spalding  romance 
theory  rest. 

31 


NO  MANUSCRIPT  BY  SPALDING  COULD  SERVE  AS  A  BASIS 
FOR  BOOK  OF   MORMON. 

One  has  but  to  read  this  manuscript  to  be  con- 
vinced that  it  never  served  as  a  basis  for  the  Book 
of  Mormon.  Nor  will  it  do  to  think  that  any  revised 
copy  of  that  manuscript  by  the  same  author  might 
have  served  for  such  a  basis.  The  personality  of 
an  author  appears  in  every  book  that  he  may  write. 
Those  who  read  this  Manuscript  Found  will  soon 
conclude  that  no  book  ever  written  by  Reverend  Solo- 
mon Spalding  could  possibly  have  served  as  a  basis 
for  the  Book  of  Mormon. 

Anyone  with  brains  enough  to  work  Solomon 
Spalding's  writings  over  and  produce  such  a  book 
as  the  Book  of  Mormon  would  not  have  needed  any 
help  from  Spalding's  pen  in  the  first  instance. 

MEN  WHO  HAVE  ABANDONED  THE  SPALDING  THEORY. 

Really  intelligent  and  careful  students  of  the  ques- 
tion have  completely  abandoned  the  Spalding  story. 
David  Utter  is  reported  to  have  said : 

No  one  who  has  ever  carefully  read  the  Book  of  Mormon 
could  fail  to  see  that  it  never  in  any  part  was  written  for  a 
romance.  .  .  .  Now,  at  last,  the  Spalding  manuscript  has  been 
found,  and  it  rests  secure  in  the  library  of  Oberlin  College. 
— The  Latter  Day  Saints,  by  Kauffman,  p.  29. 

D.  H.  Bays,  who  studied  the  question  for  forty 
years,  and  was  hailed  by  our  Christian  friends  as  a 
"child  of  providence,"  whose  book,  they  assured  us, 
was  absolutely  reliable  as  a  textbook,  says : 

The  long-lost  Spalding  story  has  at  last  been  unearthed, 
and  is  now  on  deposit  in  the  library  of  Oberlin  College  at 
Oberlin,  Ohio,  and  may  be  examined  by  anyone  who  may 

32 


take  the  pains  to  call  on  President  Fairchild,  of  that  insti- 
tution. .  .  . 

The  Spalding  story  is  a  failure.  Do  not  attempt  to  rely 
upon  it — it  ivill  let  you  down. 

The  entire  theory  connecting  Sidney  Rigdon  and  the  Spal- 
ding romance  with  Joseph  Smith  in  originating  the  Book 
of  Mormon  must  be  abandoned. — Doctrine  and  Dogmas  of 
Mormonism,  pp.  24,  25. 

President  Fairchild,  of  Oberlin  College,  says: 

The  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  in  the 
traditional  manuscript  of  Solomon  Spalding,  will  probably 
have  to  be  relinquished.  .  .  .  Some  other  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  the  Book  of  Mormon  must  be  found,  if  any  expla- 
nation is  required. — Manuscript  Found,  pp.  5,  6. 

And  last,  but  not  least,  comes  the  new  Encyclo- 
pedia Britannica  (fourteenth  edition),  in  which  we 
read: 

It  was  a  contention  of  the  early  anti-Mormons,  now  HOW- 
EVER DISCREDITED,  that  the  Book  of  Mormon  as  published  by 
Smith  was  rewritten  with  few  changes  from  an  unpublished 
romance,  The  Manuscript  Found,  written  before  1812  by  Solo- 
mon Spalding.  .  .  .  There  is  no  actual  proof  that  Rigdon  lived 
in  Pittsburg,  or  was  employed  in  a  printer's  shop  there  as 
early  as  when  Spalding's  "copy"  must  have  been  left  with 
the  printer;  and  there  is  NO  EVIDENCE  THAT  RIGDON  KNEW 

ANYTHING    OF    MORMONISM    UNTIL   AFTER    THE    PUBLICATION    OF 

THE    BOOK    OF    MORMON. — Encyclopedia    Britannica,    vol.    18, 
p.  843. 

D.  H.  BAYS  ON  THE  IMAGINARY  SECOND  MANUSCRIPT. 

The  new  fangled  theory  that  there  were  two  or 
three  manuscripts  is  perhaps  best  answered  by  one 
of  the  ablest  of  our  opponents,  Mr.  D.  H.  Bays,  who 
in  the  Christian  Evangelist  for  November  2,  1899, 
in  reply  to  one  A.  T.  Schroeder,  one  of  his  own  yoke 

33 


mates,  but  an  advocate  of  the  "three  manuscript" 
theory,  wrote  as  follows: 

I  was,  at  the  time  my  book  was  written,  fully  aware  that 
such  assertions  had  repeatedly  been  made,  but  as  I  have  never 
been  able  to  obtain  the  testimony  of  a  SINGLE  WITNESS  in 
support  of  the  claim,  I  have  unhesitatingly  dismissed  it  as 

an  IDLE  SPECULATION. 

You  assure  me  that  the  first  of  these  manuscripts  "simply 
outlined  the  story  and  is  the  one  now  in  Oberlin."  The  sec- 
ond, you  assert  with  equal  gravity,  "was  prepared  for  the 
printer,"  while  in  the  third  "the  plot  of  the  story  changed 
as  to  place  from  which  Indians  came  here  and  the  names 
changed  to  suit  the  change  in  the  plot";  and  this,  you  assure 
me,  "is  the  one  which  furnishes  the  basis  for  the  Book  of 
Mormon."  This  is  a  very  PRETTY  "THEORY,"  and  SOMEWHAT 

INGENIOUS,   but   WHERE    IS   THE   EVIDENCE   TO    SUPPORT   IT?    ... 

I  confess  myself  not  a  little  surprised  that  an  attorney, 
trained  in  a  school  of  justice  to  weigh  and  determine  the 
value  and  admissibility  of  evidence,  should  ask  a  candid 
public  to  decide  so  grave  a  matter  upon  the  bare  assertion 

Of  an  INTERESTED  PARTY,  without  the  SHADOW  OF  EVIDENCE  to 

support  it. 

If  "three  manuscripts"  ever  existed,  why  not  produce  the 
evidence  to  prove  it?  Why  not  induce  that  library  of  "over 
one  thousand  books  and  pamphlets"  to  yield  up  some  of  its 
hidden  treasures  of  knowledge  upon  this  point,  and  settle 
this  mooted  question  once  for  all?  Mormonism  for  more  than 
half  a  century  has  been  demanding  the  production  of  the 
Manuscript  Found  that  it  might  be  compared  with  the  Book 
of  Mormon.  Since  the  discovery  of  that  now  historic  docu- 
ment, and  the  further  unquestionable  fact  that  it  bears  not 
the  slightest  resemblance  to  the  Book  of  Mormon,  the  won- 
derful discovery  has  been  made  that  Salomon  Spalding  wrote 
"three  manuscripts!"  While  you  affirm  very  dogmatically, 
as  others  have  done  before  you,  that  Spalding  wrote  three 
manuscripts,  yet,  like  your  predecessors,  you  offer  not  A  SIN- 
GLE FACT  in  support  of  this  claim.  In  the  ^f ace  of  these  sig- 
nificant facts,  you  with  characteristic  pertinacity  assert: 

34 


"If  you  had  made  any  investigation  worth  mentioning,  you 
would  have  found  that  the  absolute  identity  of  the  very  un- 
usual names  in  the  Book  of  Mormon  with  the  second  Spalding 
Manuscript  was  originally  one  of  the  principal  evidences  of 
the  connection  between  the  two." 

Here  we  have  the  assumption  that  a  "second  Spalding 
Manuscript"  actually  existed,  and  from  this  assumed  premise 
you  jump  to  the  conclusion  that  the  names  were  "absolutely 
identical"  with  those  in  the  Book  of  Mormon.  My  objections 
to  this  statement  are: 

1.  The  existence  of  a  second  manuscript  is  assumed,  not 
proved. 

2.  If  such  manuscript  really  existed,  no  proof  is  offered 
to  show  the  "absolute  identity"  of  the  names  with  those  in 
the  Book  of  Mormon. 

Hence,  until  you  establish  the  alleged  fact  that  such  "sec- 
ond Spalding  Manuscript"  had  a  bona  fide  existence,  and  that 
the  "very  unusual  names"  found  in  the  Book  o*f  Mormon  are 
"absolutely  identical"  with  those  found  in  the  so-called  "sec- 
ond Spalding  Manuscript,"  a  fair-minded,  just  public  will 
reject  this  new-fangled  "Spalding  Manuscript  theory"  AS  THE 

MEREST  VAGARY  OF  A  PREJUDICED  MIND,  AND  WHOLLY  WITHOUT 

THE  SLIGHTEST  FOUNDATION  IN  FACT.  I  do  not  say  that  the 
"three  manuscripts"  had  no  actual  existence;  but  I  do  say 
that  if  such  manuscripts  ever  had  anything  more  than  an 
imaginary  existence  somebody  knows  it;  and  if  somebody 
knows  it,  why  not  have  that  somebody  step  upon  the  witness 
stand  and  boldly  testify  to  the  fact?  But  why  pursue  this 
question  further,  since  you  admit  that  it  is  only  a  "theory" 
— a  theory,  too,  supported  by  such  a  class  of  evidence  which, 
as  a  lawyer,  you  well  know  would  BE  REJECTED  BY  ANY  COURT 
IN  THIS  BROAD  LAND  OF  OURS.  Acknowledging  the  fact  you 
say: 

"I  can  not  establish  these  facts  except  by  hearsay  evidence, 
which  Greenleaf  would  bar." 

In  concluding  this  paragraph  you  remark  that: 
"Barring  the  question  of  the  hearsay  character  of  the  evi- 
dence, I  believe  a  case  can  be  made  out  much  stronger  than 

35 


the  circumstantial  evidence  upon  which  many  a  man  has  been 
hung."     (Italics  mine.) 

This  may  be  true,  but  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  many 
an  innocent  man  has  been  hung  upon  purely  "circumstantial 
evidence,"  and  it  is  a  principle  of  law  from  which  there  is 
no  deviation  that  a  guilty  man  may  better  escape  the  punish- 
ment due  to  his  crimes  than  that  an  innocent  man  should 
suffer  the  extreme  penalty  of  the  law.  Hence,  juries  are  al- 
ways instructed  to  give  the  prisoner  the  benefit  of  a  doubt. 
But,  of  course,  I  need  not  remind  an  experienced  attorney 
that  there  is  a  vast  difference  between  "hearsay  evidence"  and 
"circumstantial  evidence."  The  former  Greenleaf  peremp- 
torily excludes. — Journal  of  History,  vol.  2,  p.  94. 

A  SPIDER'S  WEB  OF  SUPPOSITIONS. 

The  extremely  tenuos  nature  of  the  Spalding  Ro- 
mance theory  in  its  present  form  is  best  shown  by 
permitting  it  to  be  stated  by  its  own  proponents. 
Mr.  Charles  Shook,  who  was  advertised  just  recently 
as  the  man  destined  to  shake  our  work  to  its  founda- 
tion, shall  have  that  honor.  He  admits  the  existence 
of  the  Spalding  manuscript  in  Oberlin  College;  but 
thinks  there  may  have  been  another  one  enlarged 
and  "polished"  up.  Hear  him: 

It  is  POSSIBLE  that  Spalding,  in  polishing  and  finishing  his 
story,  REWROTE  IT,  and  that  it  was  the  story  rewritten  which 
was  submitted  to  Patterson  and  which  fell  into  Rigdon's 
hands;  while  the  old  manuscript  MAY  have  been  placed  in  a 
trunk,  with  other  papers  of  Spalding's,  which  was  sent,  after 
his  death,  to  the  home  of  his  wife's  brother,  W.  H.  Sabine, 
in  Onondaga  County,  New  York.  Smith  worked  as  a  team- 
ster for  Sabine  in  1823,  and  some  have  CLAIMED  that  he 
either  copied  or  stole  this  manuscript.  The  first  is  very  un- 
reasonable, the  second  is  POSSIBLE  IF  SUCH  MANUSCRIPT  WAS 
IN  SABINE'S  POSSESSION. — Cumorah  Revisited,  by  Shook,  p.  28. 

Grover  Cleveland  would  call  these  men  "ifists." 

36 


According  to  him  the  "ifist,"  lost  in  the  woods  with- 
out fire  or  food,  said,  "//  we  had  a  fire,  and  if  we  had 
some  eggs,  we  would  have  ham  and  eggs,  if  we  had 
the  ham." 

Mr.  Shook  argues  that  IF  Spalding  ever  rewrote 
his  manuscript,  and  IF  he  resubmitted  it  to  the  pub- 
lisher, Rigdon  MAY  have  stolen  it ;  and  IF  this  did  not 
happen,  Smith  MAY  have  copied  it  while  in  the  pos- 
session of  Sabine,  and  IF  he  did  not  copy  it,  he  MAY 
have  stolen  it,  IF,  last  of  all,  SABINE  EVER  HAD  SUCH 

A  MANUSCRIPT. 

These  men  have  gone  back  to  the  original  Chris- 
tian or  Campbellite  proposition,  "IF  we  have  author- 
ity to  preach  we  have  authority  to  baptize." 

We  can  not  too  heartily  thank  Mr.  Shook  for  his 
very  ingenuous  statement  of  the  case. 

REQUIESCAT  IN  PACE. 

Mr.  Bays  very  nicely  demolished  this  spider's  web 
of  guesses.  His  was  the  conclusion  of  a  very  close 
student  of  the  subject,  who  certainly  was  not  preju- 
diced in  favor  of  the  Book  of  Mormon ;  in  fact  he  was 
eager  enough  to  defeat  the  Book  of  Mormon,  but  in 
this  instance  he  was  more  fair,  or  perhaps  less  des- 
perate than  those  grave  robbers  who  would  violate 
the  peaceful  and  well-earned  repose  of  the  dead  and 
long-buried  Spalding  Romance  theory  of  the  origin 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon. 

Gentlemen,  it  has  been  dead  too  long,  and,  unlike 
Lazarus,  never  having  had  Jesus  for  a  friend,  it  can 

not  hope  for  a  successful  reincarnation. 

37 


CHAPTER  FOUR 

AFFIRMATION. 

It  is  a  matter  of  regret  that  we  have  been  obliged 
to  speak  mostly  from  a  negative  standpoint  in  these 
pages.  Our  message  is  affirmative,  and  we  assume 
the  negative  only  when  forced  to  do  so  by  that  which 
we  consider  unfair  attack. 

We  hold  that  all  men  should  obey  the  laws  of  the 
land;  and  that  the  church  should  not  attempt  to 
dominate  the  state. 

We  believe  in  the  sanctity  of  the  home  and  that 
one  man  should  have  but  one  wife.  That  is  the  divine 
plan  and  it  should  not  be  evaded  in  any  way.  All 
good  men  and  women  should  unite  to  combat  the 
growing  evils  of  divorce  and  prostitution. 

We  affirm  that  God  has  spoken  and  does  still  speak 
in  this  age.  We  affirm  the  divine  principle  of  con- 
tinued revelation. 

You  may  not  agree  with  us  on  that  principle;  but 
is  our  belief  of  a  nature  to  subject  us  justly  to  ostra- 
cism and  persecution? 

Yet  for  this  "evangelical  churches,"  as  they  term 
themselves,  in  certain  places,  have  refused  to  affiliate 
with  us  in  various  forms  of  social  service,  and  indi- 
viduals have  slandered,  persecuted,  and  misrepre- 
sented us,  and  that  too  where  it  is  well  known  that 
our  people  are  honest  and  virtuous  and  have  no 
connection  with  Utah  Mormonism.  Consider  the 


proposition :  there  are  thousands  of  people  in  the 
large  cities  and  elsewhere  who  know  not  God.  We 
are  anxious  to  tell  them  about  him.  But,  strange 
thought,  we  must  be  prevented  from  doing  so  be- 
cause we  tell  them  that  God  still  lives,  works,  and 
speaks  exactly  as  he  did  two  thousand  years  ago, 
while  others  insist  that  we  must  content  ourselves 
with  telling  them,  in  the  language  of  Walter  Rausch- 
enbusch,  that  God  "acted  long  ago  and  put  it  down 
in  a  book,"  and  that  is  the  end  of  the  story. 

We  affirm  that  God  heals  the  sick  now,  and  that  all 
of  the  gifts  of  the  gospel  given  to  the  believer  an- 
ciently are  given  now. 

We  affirm  that  the  gospel  has  been  restored  again 
to  earth  and  that  the  church  has  been  formed  again 
after  the  divine  plan  set  forth  in  the  New  Testament, 
with  apostles,  prophets,  evangelists,  pastors,  and  all 
the  officers  that  God  originally  set  in  the  church. 

We  affirm  that  the  great  God  of  heaven  is  an  un- 
changeable God,  and  that  if  he  is  not  blessing  the 
churches  now  as  of  old,  and  if  the  same  power  is  not 
with  them  (concerning  which  open  confession  is 
frequently  made)  the  fault  lies  with  the  churches. 

We  affirm  that  Jesus  lives  and  that  he  is  the  Savior 
of  men,  the  gospel  being  the  "power  of  God  unto  sal- 
vation." We  hold  that  the  hour  of  the  second  advent 
of  Jesus  approaches,  and  that  these  are  the  latter 
days,  in  which  God's  power  is  to  be  wonderfully  dis- 
played as  the  time  draws  near  for  that  great,  world- 
changing  event. 

We  believe  in  the  ministrations  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  hold  that  men  may  be  inspired  and  directed  by 

39 


it  as  of  old,  and  that  the  promise  is  still  potent,  that 
whosoever  will  do  the  will  of  God  may  know  of  the 
doctrine. 

INVITATION. 

No  man  can  get  a  fair  understanding  of  Chris- 
tianity by  using  Ingersoll's  writings  exclusively  as 
textbooks.  The  thought  is  absurd.  For  precisely 
similar  reasons  no  one  can  understand  the  message 
of  Latter  Day  Saints  by  studying  only  works  writ- 
ten by  avowed  enemies. 

We  invite  you  to  attend  the  services  of  our  people. 
We  ask  you  to  talk  with  our  representatives,  and  ask 
them  questions.  We  have  nothing  hidden. 

One  celebrated  lecturer  on  "Mormonism,"  having 
stated  his  side  of  the  question,  advised  the  people  not 
to  listen  to  anything  or  read  anything  on  the  other 
side.  We  assume  that  you  are  neither  fools  nor 
cowards,  and  that  you  will  be  safe  in  the  enjoyment 
of  your  God-given  privileges  to  investigate  and 
"prove  all  things." 

We  nrge  you  to  read  the  church  books,  the  Bible,  the 
Book  of  Mormon,  and  the  Book  of  Doctrine  and  Cove- 
nants.1 These  books  teach  the  highest  and  best  of 
morals.  Their  precepts  will  make  men  and  women 
better  if  they  are  obeyed.  Why,  then,  condemn  us  for 
believing  these  books? 


^n  this  connection  we  refer  to  the  Lamoni  editions  of  Doc- 
trine and  Covenants,  or  other  editions  not  containing  the 
spurious  so-called  revelation  on  polygamy. 

40 


